I’m not vetting my pastor…I didn’t have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he’s given and see if there’s something offensive that he’s said.
No, of course not. Nor is anyone expecting him to have done so.
But this statement ignores the real accusation, which is that these statements were so commonplace in Wright’s sermons that it boggles the mind how Obama could have been there for twenty years and avoided hearing at least some (see, I can use the word too!) of them. And even if he wasn’t there for any of them (difficult if not impossible to believe), don’t these congregation members ever talk amongst themselves about statements as inflammatory as Wright’s? If so, it’s hard to believe Obama was out of that loop, too. And if not, I guess the statements were considered so ordinary as to not be worthy of discussion.
The accusation is that ‘these statements’ are ‘so commonplace’?
I might have missed something here. I thought all we had were the clips from the DVD’s sold by the church - I wasn’t aware that it had been clearly shown that he said racist things all the time. Also, which statements in particular? As some of them could really only be deemed to be offensive if one was deliberately misunderstanding them, or looking to be offended in order to make some point. It seems to me to be important to distinguish between the comments. Again, this relies on some overall vague assumption.
Also, look at what I posted from the church website which seeks to explain the theology preached at the church. Are people offended by the theology, or just Wright?
Furthermore, this particular church was founded on a questionable theology that is arguably racist at its core.
In saying all that I have, this link below (from your linked piece) suggests that there may be more to ‘black theology’ (and importantly in this case, the version preached at Trinity) than I know, and that is put across by that church FAQ. What that Cone guy writes/says seems to be quite different to what the FAQ claims.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/the-insanity-of-black-liberati.html
Wow, Salon found a kook to carry water for the racist…
That aside, I really don’t know what your point is. I could post a bunch of vile nonsense from some paleo con rag without comment… so what? I could also post a bunch of mainstream conservative articles without comment. Again, so what?
Anyway, it’s time for change. No more 60s radicals, black nationalists, et cetera. Feel the change Mr Obama. ;)
That is the change that Obama represents, IMO.
Obama is the same old same old.. claiming to be change.
We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.”
“You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”
We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.”
“You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”
Funny how these guys keep popping up around him.
Obama… reaching out… from the left to the wacko far left…
Seems you still don’t understand what I repeatedly said in that other thread - for 2 years after 11 Sept, 2001 the Admin repeatedly refuse to provide a straight answer. They did NOT say there was no evidence. They left it sufficiently murky, and took advantage of the opportunity to conflate the two in a vague sense, so that an average person with average knowledge would come away with a sense that perhaps he was involved. It was over 2 years before they categorically denied a link. During which time the number of people who believed that Saddam was linked to the attacks grew to over half the population.
I understand, I simply disagree. I was certain in a matter of days Saddam had no involvement, and I never heard anything from the administration that changed my mind. Am I that far ahead of average people? I think all those people screaming that “the administration is trying to make you think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 actually did more in terms of making the connection in peoples minds.
CM - 01 April 2008 05:08 PM
No, I don’t see how pointing at two examples on a racist specturm is attempting to link the two. Their only link is through Obama (in terms of a relationship) and his sense of the fact that there IS a spectrum and these two people occupy different places on it. The whole speech was about attitudes to race and how different people harbour different feelings, and that there is anger/fear that can be real, and that if it is just ignored and bottled up then it will never improve.
He isn’t pointing out points on a spectrum. He’s playing magician. It’s misdirection plain and simple. He’s trying to distract you from the fact he was comfortable with racist statements by his pastor by giving you a white person to stare at instead. Too many people think “anger at the dominant power structure” is a perfectly fine thing. Myself, I don’t think racism by anyone is acceptable. If you would be offended by the phrase directed at someone who is a minority, you shouldn’t use it when talking of someone who isn’t one. “typical black person” is not considered, in the US, as an acceptable way of referring to someone and I think Rev. Wright knows that. Should peoples grievances be discussed and addressed certainly. But insulting the other side, whichever side, isn’t going to accomplish that.
CM - 01 April 2008 05:08 PM
The Admin had a strong motive, and it proved to be a successful tactic in ensuring they got what they wanted. What would Obama’s strong motive be for linking the two?
To distract us from the lies he is telling to make himself seem innocent.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape.
I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries.
And what I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor…
COOPER: How…
OBAMA: ... something that the church often (INAUDIBLE) some.
But so the—what is undeniable is that, you know, these are a series of incendiary statements that I can’t object to strongly enough. Had I heard those in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that, you know, that I profoundly disagreed with them. They didn’t reflect my values, and they didn’t reflect my ideals.
COOPER: Did you not know, though, that, I mean, a couple days after 9/11, he said, you know, this was America’s chickens coming home to roost, a result of what he called American terrorism around the world?
I mean, you may not have been there, but have you—you must have heard that he had said these things.
OBAMA: You know, I confess that I did not hear about this—until I started running for president.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
So, “I didn’t hear these things, but I heard them and disagreed with them.” That’s the motive.
You’re condoning an attack on him because of his ‘precise use of language’??!
Yesterday’s exhibit A was Obama’s appearance on the television show “The View,” where Obama said of Reverend Wright, “I never heard him say some of the things that have people upset.”
It isn’t a precise use of language. It is a phrase specifically designed to obfuscate. There is an old joke, perhaps you are unaware of it. I tell you “I have two coins. They total 35 cents. One is not a quarter. What are the two coins?” The answer is “A dime and a quarter.” The statement “One isn’t a quarter.” is factually true. However it misleads the listener into thinking neither coin is a quarter.
Obama’s statement “I never heard him say some of the things that have people upset.” doesn’t say that he has never heard any of the statements that have people upset. If he has repeatedly heard things that he knows are upseting people but he has missed some of the ones being reported, he’s telling the truth. But his phrasing leads you to think he hasn’t heard any of them.
Precise language would have been “I have never heard any of the things getting people upset.” or “I have heard him say some of the things that are making people upset.”
So, “I didn’t hear these things, but I heard them and disagreed with them.” That’s the motive.
He even quoted a couple racist Wright statements in his book.... geesh… I guess it just shows the bubble he lived in… the circles he ran in those kinds of things didn’t raise any eyebrows.
As to polls as a guide to perceptions… I saw one the other day that had high something 40% of voters thought McCain was a bit of a hard liner on immigration… McCain’s always been mostly open about not being one… Sometimes the public goes off on the wrong track and no one is specifically to blame… I find your point about the anti war crowd possibly having a hand in the 911 / Saddam linkage worth maybe some more follow up. Since many people reflexively distrust the far left, if they kept pushing the meme that the admin was pushing a lie… maybe some people bought into it because of their distrust of them… sort of an unintentional rope a dope / the Berkley crowd says it’s a lie so it must be true…
As to polls as a guide to perceptions… I saw one the other day that had high something 40% of voters thought McCain was a bit of a hard liner on immigration… McCain’s always been mostly open about not being one… Sometimes the public goes off on the wrong track and no one is specifically to blame....
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2008) –A new poll using neutral language finds that primary and caucus voters have little knowledge of candidates’ immigration positions. The results also show that voters often do not share their candidate’s position.
Among the findings:
Only 34 percent of McCain voters, 42 percent of Clinton voters, and 52 percent of Obama voters correctly identified their candidate as favoring eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements.
If you’re definition of being a “bit of a hard liner on immigration” includes not favoring an eventual path to citizenship, then it looks like 66% of McCain Voters have it wrong. When they talk about voters though, I’m not sure if they mean those who plan to vote for these guys in the general, in otherwords “supporters”, or those who did vote for them in various primaries.
Of McCain voters, 35 percent mistakenly thought he favored enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, another 10 percent thought he wanted mass deportations, and 21 percent didn’t know his position.
Since we’re being picky about language in this thread, I think the center for immigration studies is being intentionally tricky here.
Technically, McCain does (or is that did?) favour enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, specifically he wanted all those guilty of certain crimes in the US or back in their home countries to be deported right away, estimates were at about 2 million fitting in this group if I remember correctly, so it’s not accurate to say that 35% are wrong. If they’d said “all illegals” they’d have a point.
10% thought he wanted mass deportations? Well, 2 million people is a lot of folks, to move 2 million people anywhere against their will would be a massive task. 2 million is over 3 times the number of active police personnel in the country. So if would be a fair argument to say he favours mass deportation of illegals. The thing is, it doesn’t match what a lot of people would prefer and what they think of as a mass deportation.
The 21% should probably do some research. If they are talking about folks who say they will vote for him in the general though, I could see there being a lot of folks who liked another candidate better in the primary so focused on their positions, but now McCain is the de facto nominee they are committing to voting for him, out of allegiance to the Republican party or dislike of the Dem candidates, and its certainly possible that McCains specific positions couldn’t change that for them so they feel no need to educate themselves about them.
Remainder of the findings:
Voters often held different positions from the candidate they supported. Only 31 percent of McCain voters had the same immigration position as he does. For Clinton voters, 45 percent shared her position; 61 percent of Obama voters shared his position.
This lack of knowledge, coupled with disagreements with their candidates’ positions, makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions about the fact that all three remaining candidates favor legalization for illegal immigrants.
Whoever wins the presidency will face significant opposition to giving eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants. Just 25 percent of Republican and 50 percent of Democratic primary/caucus voters said they would support such an effort.
Pro-enforcement voters have a greater intensity of views than supporters of legalization. Among Republicans, almost nine out ten who favored causing illegals to return home said they strongly supported that view; on the other hand, fewer than half of Republicans who backed legalization strongly supported that view.
This greater intensity also exists among Democrats. Of Democrats who favored causing illegals to return home, more than seven out of ten strongly supported that view; on the other hand, fewer than six out of ten who favored legalization strongly supported that view.
Methodology: The survey of 1,276 persons who voted in a primary or caucus was conducted March 12-13. The survey was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research.
Some of their “findings” seem more like opinions to me.
The methodology doesn’t help me out much, although it does lead me to believe that it was about who voted in a primary. Still, at that stage, McCain was the de facto nominee anyway.
However you cut it though, there still seems to be a lot of people mistaken about the policies, which was the original statement, and I agree.
I want to speak more directly to the topic of the thread. I think that the speech that Obama gave was an unusual one. Rarely does someone talk about race and try to see both sides of the issue. I think he is right. The anger is real. And its real on both sides. And both sides have a beef. You see it in this thread. Blacks are pissed for very real historical and current reasons. Whites feel unfairly discriminated against through affirmative action. Blacks feel that they still live in a racist society as evidenced by the way cops and mall security treat them. Whites feel that they don’t know how to talk or interact in anything dealing with race or they are accused of racism. There is a large misunderstanding between large segments of this country that are the actual scars of slavery.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation. Its much easier to draw lines and divide us into those who do and don’t empathize with folks that agree with a crazy preacher. Those that wish to excuse self-defeating behavior of black culture and those who wish to punish it.
I think that was the point of the speech. I agree with it. I think it was brave thing to do. You think it was political expediency. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
So you want it, but only on your terms......
Everyone needs a discussion to be partially on their terms (or it’s not really a discussion)… but no, not ‘only on my terms’… and btw.. not only in this message, but in this whole thread you’ve been either playing dumb (re: are deceitful) or just are… so, continuing along those lines, no… and I’ll explain this obvious stuff slowly… he’s just… not… an acceptable… moderator… for leading t-h-e… discussion.
Technically, McCain does (or is that did?) favour enforcement that would cause illegals to return home
Technically, he said some things that lead you to believe that and no one else accepted your arguments to that effect.
You’re still beating that drum?
The guy has said these are his policies, he has introduced legislation in line with that. You can go on believing that he doesn’t want to send home an estimated 2 million people who have committed felony crimes within the US.
Anyway, the poll is about the candidates policies, not the secret views you mighe believe the candidates hold.
Technically, McCain does (or is that did?) favour enforcement that would cause illegals to return home
Technically, he said some things that lead you to believe that and no one else accepted your arguments to that effect.
You’re still beating that drum?
The guy has said these are his policies, he has introduced legislation in line with that. You can go on believing that he doesn’t want to send home an estimated 2 million people who have committed felony crimes within the US.
Anyway, the poll is about the candidates policies, not the secret views you mighe believe the candidates hold.
You’ve shifted it from illegals to illegals that have committed felonies in the country. Slore is talking about your belief that the comprehensive piece of shit wasn’t amnesty. Because you, like McCain, believed “hey its not amnesty, they have to go home to their country and pay a fine.”
The guy has said these are his policies, he has introduced legislation in line with that. You can go on believing that he doesn’t want to send home an estimated 2 million people who have committed felony crimes within the US.
And the other 20+ million? The poll isn’t tricky at all. He is not for ‘sending illegals home’ before offering them a path to citizenship. Nothing he has done, passed, supported, or said shows that to be the case before he started this election. In fact, legislation he personally supported, and argued for just two years ago would have provided just the opposite. Go ahead, show us where McCain-Kennedy supported deportation of all illegal aliens.
Anyway, the poll is about the candidates policies, not the secret views you mighe believe the candidates hold.
While debating whether McCain supported amnesty, Romney said, “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad.” McCain denied ever favoring amnesty, saying, “Let me just say I’ve never supported amnesty.”
McCain is right when he says that his bill required penalties to be paid by illegals trying to adjust their status, while dictionaries define “amnesty” as a pardon. But he himself has in the past used the “a” word to describe what he had in mind:
May 29, 2003 interview: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens.”
Dec. 15, 2000 press release: “I support the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act (LIFA). Negotiations between the White House and the leadership, which endorsed more limited immigration reform, have resulted in a compromise.... this bill makes meaningful but insufficient progress on amnesty for those wrongly denied it.”
Technically, McCain does (or is that did?) favour enforcement that would cause illegals to return home
Technically, he said some things that lead you to believe that and no one else accepted your arguments to that effect.
You’re still beating that drum?
The guy has said these are his policies, he has introduced legislation in line with that. You can go on believing that he doesn’t want to send home an estimated 2 million people who have committed felony crimes within the US.
Anyway, the poll is about the candidates policies, not the secret views you might believe the candidates hold.
You’ve shifted it from illegals to illegals that have committed felonies in the country. Slore is talking about your belief that the comprehensive piece of shit wasn’t amnesty. Because you, like McCain, believed “hey its not amnesty, they have to go home to their country and pay a fine.”
Whoops, you need to read McCains ideas on the subject again (or for the first time), As Xetrov has pointed out, McCain isn’t for sending people back to their own country before extending a path to citizenship.
I didn’t shift the debate on sending illegals home in this thread, I started it. sl0re isn’t talking about “amnesty” specifically either
Buzzion - 02 April 2008 04:40 PM
Best friend to an elected official is a willfully uninformed voting population.
Read McCains positions and then you can join the adult conversation.
The guy has said these are his policies, he has introduced legislation in line with that. You can go on believing that he doesn’t want to send home an estimated 2 million people who have committed felony crimes within the US.
And the other 20+ million? The poll isn’t tricky at all. He is not for ‘sending illegals home’ before offering them a path to citizenship. Nothing he has done, passed, supported, or said shows that to be the case before he started this election. In fact, legislation he personally supported, and argued for just two years ago would have provided just the opposite. Go ahead, show us where McCain-Kennedy supported deportation of all illegal aliens.
The other 12 / 20 / 30 million (depending on which estimate you listen to) are the problem. As we all know McCain favours various options for them including an eventual path to citizenship for some, and at least some form of legalization for the rest. We’ve debated the merits of this before and if we were to do it again it’s for another thread probably.
My point is the article about the poll says people wrongly believe McCain is in favour of sending illegals home. He has said many times he is in favour of sending 2 million plus illegals home. Certainly the way the article I linked to is written, it is incorrect.
If they had written “People wrongly believe McCain is in favour of sending all illegal aliens home” they would have a point.
McCain does not want to offer illegals who commit felonies within the US a path to citizenship before sending them home, that is just wrong. He may have changed some of his views on the subject over the last year. He freely admits that, and further more he admits he changed his views because of the opinions of the very people he hopes to represent. Isn’t that what a politician should do?
My point is the article about the poll says people wrongly believe McCain is in favour of sending illegals home. He has said many times he is in favour of sending 2 million plus illegals home. Certainly the way the article I linked to is written, it is incorrect.
It comes down to your opinion of the article, because the words are clear.
Of McCain voters, 35 percent mistakenly thought he favored enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, another 10 percent thought he wanted mass deportations, and 21 percent didn’t know his position.
He is not for ‘enforcement that would cause illegals to return home’. At least he wasn’t prior to an election year. Amazing what an election will make people say.
He freely admits that, and further more he admits he changed his views because of the opinions of the very people he hopes to represent. Isn’t that what a politician should do?
Be a politician? No, he should support a line of course because he thinks that it is right, no matter what opinion polls say. Wow, with a statement like that (if it is a widely felt sentiment on the left), no wonder Clinton lasted 8 years in office, and his wife has a chance at a term. That’s like saying a politicians record on supporting anything through votes or legislation pushed should not be considered because of their current statements.
